Wednesday, December 22

After mentioning Colette, a woman who showed considerable balls throughout her life, and wrote without false tears, tough to the core fiction, today brings another of the Clare Short crew of weeping women, part of the hard left weeping brigade - this time, it's an Iraqi arguing that women were better off under Saddam the Mad.

The usual dirty bombs are thrown in - eg the alleged 100,000 dead since April 2003 - with no modifiers, just tears of outrage. Apparently even the missionaries are looting Iraq. Really? All of them? All of them? No? Well, qualify what you say then: it's called responsible journalism. As practiced by some, a few . . .

I can accept as true the report that Iraqi women are generally scared to go out right now, particularly at night, but these rough times will pass (and again, the fear afflicting the rights of women does not mean ALL Iraqis are being "denied the basic right of walking safely in their streets").

Once more, my rebuttal is simply along the lines of imagining what would have happened to Iraq under the Rolling Thunder of the Hussein mob. And once more, I offer the telling figure that is pretty much fact jacked by now, even in UN circles: 300,000 murdered under Saddam.

It's a plus that Iraq, as a secular dictatorship, did afford women more rights than most if not all arab and/or muslim states; it's a secular tradition of emancipation and freedom that the soon-to-be-elected Iraqi government can build on.

There's no doubting that it's a major fuck-off for living Iraqis that the democritisation of their country is going to take at least five years - and were I there now I may well be feeling miffed too; but future generations shall be free. Free and prosperous, and the envy of much of the arab world, though, it has to be said, they'll be hated by the muslim fascist fundamentalists.

Yeah: welcome to our world.

But the reason I react to such articles by the weeping brigade (Short, Ali, Cook, Moore, Klein - and let's not forget the old mucker Cunt Galloway) is that they are pointless.

Pointless. Arguing about whether we should have overthrown Saddam may as well be left in a historical moratorium for twenty years: then we may see clearer. Of course, I think it was right to do, and that the future will prove so, but right now there are matters at hand. You may wish we weren't starting from here, as it were, but here we are.

Pointless. It's all pointless, weepy, often politically vindictive guff, from the politically moribund weeping brigade. Still, if we had nothing and no one by which to compare, how could we be sure that we're not idiots?

There I am: self-defeated. They do have a point in existing after all.

It must be said that, as dictators go, you're kind of pathetic. Instead of using a military coup
or systematic persecution to get power, you just happen to be the head of the only party in Great Britain
that isn't a cretinous joke. While not very impressive, it is none the less effective:
you can do whatever the hell you like without any chance of being voted out of office.

Enough people recognise that the alternatives would have them selling their parents and children
on eBay to pay for their own dental care (forever seeking to replicate your Colgate grin),
or bowing down in sandal-socked subservience to theocratic murderers who surprisingly declined
the liberal offer to shake hands and kiss it better.

As such, you can choose to ignore the rabble, or piss on them from a great height - and get away with it,
preaching the Gospel according to Blair using bits of whatever eastern philosophies
happen to be floating through your transom.